Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed suit against the city building inspector under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging violations of his First Amendment rights. The district court granted summary judgment to defendant and the city, dismissing plaintiff's suit with prejudice. The court affirmed, concluding that, while the inspector was acting inappropriately, he did not violate plaintiff's First Amendment rights where the potential chilling effect of the inspector's instruction to a city employee to call the police when plaintiff wanted to file a grievance against the inspector was mitigated by the fact that the other city employees present did not echo the inspector's attitude. View "Scheffler v. Molin, et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff, a Missouri inmate, appealed the district court's dismissal of an action alleging that defendants violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (RA), 29 U.S.C. 701, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq, by the way they handle his medical needs. The court affirmed the dismissal of the individual-capacity claims against Defendants Lange and Logan, prison officials, because they could not be sued in their individual capacities under the ADA or the RA; affirmed the dismissal of the claims against the medical doctors and CMS because those claims were based on medical treatment decisions which could not form the basis of a claim under the RA or ADA; reversed the dismissal of claims for injunctive relief against Lange, Logan, the State of Missouri and MDOC that were not based on medical treatment decisions; remanded damages claims against the State of Missouri and the MDOC under the ADA, and against the MDOC under the RA, because some of defendants' alleged behavior could violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; affirmed the dismissal of the unnamed medical doctors and CMS, and the individual capacity claims against Lange and Logan; reversed the dismissal of injunctive relief claims against the state defendants that were not based on medical treatment decisions; reversed the dismissal of damages claims against the State of Missouri and the MDOC; and remanded for further proceedings. The court denied plaintiff's appellate motions. View "Dinkins v. Correctional Medical Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that the mortgage trust that claimed to hold his mortgage was not validly assigned the mortgage, and therefore, his mortgage could not be foreclosed by the trust. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the trustee, Wells Fargo. The court affirmed, concluding that the assignment to the mortgage trust was valid. Given the record, including the custodian's initial certification failing to list the promissory note as missing - which provided a strong inference that the note was not missing - and given the lack of any other reason to believe the note was or is missing, the court agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury could find that the original promissory note was not in the Trust's possession on the startup date of the Trust. View "Johnson, Jr. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A." on Justia Law

Petitioner, a gang member guilty of twelve counts of murder, challenged the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254. The court found that the Minnesota Supreme Court's determination that petitioner's Confrontation Clause rights were not violated was not an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent where permitting cross-examination of petitioner's codefendants regarding sentencing reductions in exchange for their testimony against petitioner was based on conjecture which would likely confuse the jury, without giving the jury a significantly different impression of the witnesses' credibility. Further, the limits imposed on petitioner's cross examination of the codefendants did not constitute prejudice where there was sufficient evidence to prove that petitioner actively participated in the gang-related shootings and that he intended his presence to further the commission of these crimes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the petition. View "Yang v. Bray" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against defendants, alleging, inter alia, a state-law defamation claim arising out of a fact-finding meeting concerning a workplace dispute. On appeal, plaintiff challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants. The court held that because plaintiff failed to follow Rule 15's procedures and nothing in the district court's order or the record suggested that leave to amend the complaint was granted, the federal claims were not withdrawn from the second amended complaint and remained before the district court until those claims were dismissed by the court in its order. The court construed plaintiff's purported dismissal as a declaration that he was abandoning all claims except the defamation and breach of union constitution claims and would present no further evidence or argument supporting those abandoned claims. Therefore, the claims were merely abandoned for purposes of argument, not removed from the second amended complaint. The court also concluded that the district court properly exercised supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff's state-law defamation claim. On the merits, the district court's grant of summary judgment was improper because plaintiff satisfied all elements of his defamation claim for summary judgment purposes and the vice president of the union's statements were not privileged. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "Thomas v. United Steelworkers Local 1938, et al." on Justia Law

Petitioner and his wife sought review of the BIA's order affirming the denial of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to review the merits of petitioner's first argument on appeal regarding the BIA's failure to determine his nationality because it had been waived; the BIA's conclusion that petitioner failed to show a well-founded fear of future persecution based on his status as a Palestinian refugee, or in the alternative, his Palestinian nationality, was supported by substantial evidence; the court rejected petitioner's argument that he was entitled to asylum because, as a stateless person, no government would accept him; the plain language of 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(42)(A) required a stateless person to show the same well-founded fear of persecution as an individual with a nationality; the decision to deny asylum was supported by substantial evidence and the evidence in the administrative record was not so compelling that no reasonable factfinder would be forced to conclude otherwise; because petitioner failed to establish eligibility for asylum, he necessarily could not meet the more rigorous standard for withholding of removal; and, because petitioner relied on the same evidence to support his claim of protection under the CAT, he failed to demonstrate that he would more likely than not be tortured in any of the countries designated for removal. The court rejected petitioner's due process arguments because they directly mirror his substantive issues. Accordingly, the court denied the petition for review. View "Agha, et al. v. Holder, Jr." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, injured in a truck accident that killed their daughter, filed suit for additional payment under a State Farm policy insuring another vehicle (Hyundai policy) that had identical underinsured motorist (UIM) coverage as the policy insuring their truck (Ford policy). The court concluded that a reasonable person, reading the Hyundai policy in its entirety, would know the stacking of the UIM policies was prohibited. Further, the district court correctly ruled that the Hyundai policy was not illusory. Because the district court found that the Hyundai policy unambiguously precluded policy stacking, it did not address State Farm's alternative argument that the UIM "Exclusions" in the policy barred recovery for any insured other than plaintiffs. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Daughhetee, et al. v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins." on Justia Law

Petitioner pled guilty to engaging in a Continuing Criminal Enterprise for his involvement in a drug operation on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota. On appeal, petitioner challenged the district court's denial of his motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence under 28 U.S.C. 2255. The court concluded that the magistrate judge's findings as to credibility were not clearly erroneous; the district court did not err in dismissing petitioner's ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim on the ground that he did not instruct his counsel to appeal; the district court's finding that counsel made objectively reasonable choices in discussing an appeal with petitioner was not clearly erroneous; and, therefore, counsel fulfilled her constitutional duty to consult with petitioner. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Kevin Walking Eagle v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for being a felon in possession of a firearm, aiding and abetting possession of cocaine base with intent to distribute, and possessing a firearm in the furtherance of a drug trafficking crime. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict both defendants of being a felon in possession where the testimony of the officers was sufficient to prove that defendants each had a handgun in his possession; the evidence supported a reasonable inference that Defendant Johnson associated with the group at issue for the purpose of distributing the cocaine base and that Johnson, by possessing the cocaine base, sought for the distribution to succeed; Muldrow's behavior supported a reasonable inference that Muldrow participated in the unlawful activities of the group and, by acting as lookout, seeking for them to succeed; and Johnson and Muldrow carried their firearms while Johnson had the cocaine base on his person and Muldrow acted as lookout, both of which were done to further the distribution of cocaine. Accordingly, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendants of all charges and the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm and the district court sentenced him to a mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months' imprisonment under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e)(1). Defendant had a juvenile adjudication for armed robbery under Illinois law and, according to the PSR, this juvenile adjudication was a predicate offense under the ACCA that, in combination with two other predicate offenses committed by defendant, compelled a mandatory term of imprisonment. Because the dangerous-weapon element of the Illinois statute was textually indivisible, the court conducted a categorical elements-based inquiry. The court held that defendant's adjudication under the indivisible dangerous-weapon element did not necessarily mean that he was adjudicated for use or carrying a firearm, knife, or destructive device such that the adjudication constituted an ACCA predicate offense. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Bankhead" on Justia Law